Now you are lying. I've never said that and I don't think that and I didn't post those words.

lets see July of 2018 your quote:

The sale has already been postposed several times. The reason its looking like the whole things is going to be cancelled is that Saudi is unwilling to disclose information about the condition of their oil assets and oil reserves, apparently because they don't want the world to know how close to depletion Ghawar and their other legacy oil fields are in.

This is consistent with news reports that KSA is telling Trump its impossible for them to raise their production to bring down oil prices

and maybe a day later you said:

And whats more, forget about the IPO they've been preparing too. They're not going to do that either. They don't want anybody else to see the books or check those claims about oil reserves, don't you know, because their claims might be specious and they might get sued for lying about their oil reserves.

Saudi lying about their oil reserves? Why, perish the thought!

and when called out on this nonsense you responded:

The WSJ article cites ARAMCO insiders as saying they fear making disclosures during the IPO process. Considering that the principal data that ARAMCO has that is relevant to the IPO is all oil related, I don't see how you can rule out the idea that ARAMCO does't want to make full disclosures about their oil data as part of the IPO based on their oil reserves.

If you want to dream up dumb ideas and then argue with yourself about your own dumb ideas, you are welcome to do so but please don't use a phony quote to try to claim your dumb ideas have anything to do with me.

My comment up thread did not attribute a particular quote to you.... I simply said:

There is 48 billion barrels of oil left in that zone of high oil saturation. You are living in a world of "oh the Saudis are lying about their reserves, Ghawar is failing....etc, etc." that was endemic on this site a decade ago and you were tossing the same idea out on another thread just a few months ago.

The sale has already been postposed several times. [b]The reason its looking like the whole things is going to be cancelled is that Saudi is unwilling to disclose information about the condition of their oil assets and oil reserves

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Thats very funny.

I can't believe you don't understand the concept of time.

In July of 2018 the Saudi's hadn't released information on their oil assets and reserves. They'd kept this kind of info under wraps for decades.

Now its 2019, the year after 2018, and after decades of secrecy they finally released information on their oil assets and reserves as part of their bond prospectus. Are you really so ignorant that you don't even understand that? In 2018 the Saudis hadn't released the data and now in 2019 they have.

Do you get it now?

Do I have to explain the concept of time and how the calendar works to you now? Are you really that thick?

In July of 2018 the Saudi's hadn't released information on their oil assets and reserves. They'd kept this kind of info under wraps for decades.

Nice try with revisionist history. This is what I said above:

You are living in a world of "oh the Saudis are lying about their reserves, Ghawar is failing....etc, etc." that was endemic on this site a decade ago and you were tossing the same idea out on another thread just a few months ago.

So you are telling us mid-2018 isn't a few months ago?...less than a year, few months pretty much the same.

Now its 2019, the year after 2018, and after decades of secrecy they finally released information on their oil assets and reserves as part of their bond prospectus. Are you really so ignorant that you don't even understand that? In 2018 the Saudis hadn't released the data and now in 2019 they have.

Yes but I wasn't the one who bought into the conspiracy theory you were supporting. I was pointing out the whole time that they weren't lying (which I've been saying for over a decade here). The reserves had already been audited back then and reported in the news (as I pointed out in that thread) and you still claimed they were making it all up. If you had any brains or could read you would have realized this back then.

First you tell us that you never said any of that....but apparently, there is proof you did. Then you tell us that essentially you were right because they hadn't released the data, which could be the dumbest thing I've heard here yet. And now you are back at it again. Taking information from the prospectus (which clearly you never read) out of context to support your view that Ghawar is somehow dying and Saudi Arabia is in trouble (based on your ludicrous understanding of reservoir engineering principles), even though they still have more reserves in just Ghawar than many countries in the world (it's actually the same now as all of Libya as an example).

So keep up with trying to rewrite history. If you think folks here can't see through it then I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken.

You are living in a world of "oh the Saudis are lying about their reserves...."

We've already discussed this dumb idea of yours.

For the second time, I've never claimed the Saudis are lying about their reserves.

For the second time, the post you cited from 2018 doesn't claim the Saudis are lying. I said the Saudi hadn't released the data...which in 2018 they hadn't.

For the second time please note that it wasn't until 2019 that the Saudis released data on their oil holdings as part of their bond prospectus.

There is a concept in science known as GIGO....that means garbage in garbage out. GIGO refers to the fact that if you start with a bad theory or bad data, then the results of the experiment aren't going to be what you hope for. GIGO will introduce fatal flaws. Well....you are suffering from a bad case of GIGO. You are starting from a false premise, so your results don't make any sense. You are taking my post from a year ago, lying about what it says, and then going on to claim that your lie says something about my views now. Sorry....all you've done is engage in a particularly dumb episode of lying.

The post you cited from 2018 doesn't claim the Saudis are lying. I said the Saudi hadn't released the data...which in 2018 they hadn't.

Yeah right.....your quote:

And whats more, forget about the IPO they've been preparing too. They're not going to do that either. They don't want anybody else to see the books or check those claims about oil reserves, don't you know, because their claims might be specious and they might get sued for lying about their oil reserves.

Saudi lying about their oil reserves? Why, perish the thought!

Not only that but you defended your view they weren't telling the truth when several other posters called you out.

Do I have to explain the concept of time to you as well? Do I have to explain that 2018 was last year, and this year is 2019? Do you understand that 2019 comes after 2018?

OK, making the same claim over and over again doesn't make it more correct. I said ....once again..."you were tossing the same idea out on another thread just a few months ago" which is correct. Notwithstanding the fact that I had pointed out to you back in mid-2018 that the reserve audit had already been completed and that it was reported the results were in line with those already indicated by Aramco. Back in 2017 the very fact Aramco had hired both GCA and D&M to conduct reserve audits (which both companies would be legally at risk by not reporting correctly) for the proposed IPO pretty much signaled Aramco had no worries about the reserve levels they had already made public.

But revisionist history seems to be your go-to response whenever you are caught out. Not sure why I would expect anything different this time around.

And whats more, forget about the IPO they've been preparing too. They're not going to do that either.

?????

Again, don't you follow the news? Don't you know anything about this topic?

The Saudis didn't do an IPO, just as I predicted. Don't you even understand that? They switched to doing a bond sale instead.

And why? One reason may well be that the level of disclosure for a bond sale is lower then that required for an IPO.

Again, what I posted in 2018 has come to pass.

Lo and verily, I say unto you, thou generation of one viper, thou knowest not the truth when thou readist it. Thou are living in darkness, with dumb ideas in thou head. Verily this is true.

Amen.

I suggest you grow up and face the facts here. There is no IPO, in spite of your repeated claims the Saudis would issue an IPO and the claims of the Saudis over the last four years that they would issue an IPO.

The Saudis didn't do an IPO, just as I predicted. Don't you even understand that? They switched to doing a bond sale instead.

And why? One reason may well be that the level of disclosure for a bond sale is lower then that required for an IPO.

Again, what I posted in 2018 has come to pass.

they didn't do a bond sale "instead"....they did the bond sale to help with the acquisition of SABIC. Aramco's CEO already said that they still have a plan for the IPO but it had to wait on the SABIC deal to be done and would need to include new cashflows. You predicted it was canceled...Do I need to find that quote too? It hasn't been canceled....postponed is not the same thing as I have pointed out many, many times.

By the way, why are you putting a whole bunch of ????? following a quote that was yours? Do you not even understand (or possibly not remember) what it is you wrote?

And why? One reason may well be that the level of disclosure for a bond sale is lower then that required for an IPO.

wherever you got that from doesn't understand what went into the prospectus. What was disclosed including past years financials, reserves etc was precisely what is included in an IPO. There is nothing missing there. The only difference is for ongoing continuous disclosure which they will not have to do (as yet) because the bond was not issued on a US market. When they get around to an IPO they will be subject to continuous disclosure no matter where they decide to list.

I suggest you grow up and face the facts here. There is no IPO, in spite of your repeated claims the Saudis would issue an IPO and the claims of the Saudis over the last four years that they would issue an IPO.

what "facts" would those be? The ones you get from some pundit suggesting he knows what is going on? How about we look at what the CEO of Saudi Aramco said a week ago:

Al-Falih also told Bloomberg that investor demand for Saudi Aramco’s debut dollar bond has exceeded $30bn. The securities, which haven’t priced yet, will be the first of many debt offerings by the company. He added that the company will have a "permanent presence" in capital markets, and in a couple of years investors will be able to buy either company stock or bonds.He also noted that he hopes Saudi Aramco will proceed with an initial public offering, which has been delayed, in 2021.

Pretty clear from that statement that the Bond was not chased as a means of replacing an IPO. And all the pundits out there who suggest it is a replacement don't seem to understand the difference. A bond has to be redeemed. If Aramco issues a bond for $10 billion dollars that is due in periods up to 10 years out they not only pay interest regularly to bondholders but they must also redeem all the bonds at the end of the period. They are hence in the negative in terms of that transaction, the only reason they would do it is to allow them to use that $10 billion elsewhere early on, time value of money being what it is. In the case of an IPO where they sell $10 billion of shares they are on the hook for whatever dividends need to be paid but they do not have to pay back the $10 billion. You do Bonds and sell equity for two completely different reasons, suggesting the two are interchangeable with similar outcomes is far from the truth. The original goal stated by SA for issuing an IPO was to make Aramco a public integrated corporation, larger than Exxon or Shell..a bond sale doesn't get them there.

But you said in your post above there was no difference between the disclosure for a bond and disclosure involved in doing an IPO. And yet now you are admitting there is a difference?

are you illiterate? Apparently so. What I said was this:

wherever you got that from doesn't understand what went into the prospectus. What was disclosed including past years financials, reserves etc was precisely what is included in an IPO. There is nothing missing there. The only difference is for ongoing continuous disclosure which they will not have to do (as yet) because the bond was not issued on a US market. When they get around to an IPO they will be subject to continuous disclosure no matter where they decide to list.

What that means is the information you get from an IPO prospectus is exactly what you would get from the Bond prospectus. The difference (as I carefully pointed out) is in terms of continuous disclosure after the IPO is finished and the company is listed and after the Bond sale is completed.

Were you lying or just displaying your usual ignorance when you claimed the level of disclosure was the same for an IPO and a bond?

Look moron, read what I wrote before putting words in my mouth.

Anyway, the bottom line is I am right again. As I've explained to you multiple times now, the level of disclosure required for a bond is not as great as that required for the completion of an IPO.

Again you are apparently completely illiterate. IPO means intial public offering, all that is required for that is the prospectus which contains the same disclosure items to the same depth as Aramco disclosed in their Bond prospectus. They both serve the same purpose ...i.e. informing the investor of all the relevant information so they can make an investment decision. After the IPO is completed the company is publically listed and as a public company they have continuous disclosure provisions. This has nothing to do with completing an IPO but applies after that has been done to public companies. The two are unrelated.

As the CEO of Aramco has said now that they have completed all the work for disclosure related to the Bond prospectus they have the needed information to proceed with an IPO after the finances are updated to include the SABIC portion and the Bond cashflow items.

IPO means intial public offering, all that is required for that is the prospectus which contains the same disclosure items to the same depth as Aramco disclosed in their Bond prospectus.

You are such a thickie.

For the fourth time, a prospectus is not all that is required. The responsibility of the company doesn't end with issuing a prospectus. It is only the start of the process of going public.

Please consider how a bond is different from a company going public through an IPO.

The prospectus for the IPO, if ARAMCO ever does it, will have to be reviewed by the stock exchange---something that hasn't happened yet. Saudi Aramco will have to sign legal documents agreeing to comply with the rules of the stock exchange---something that hasn't happened yet. And Saudi Aramco will have to commit to being fully transparent with their financial status in the future...something else that hasn't happened yet.

There are no such obligations involved with issuing a prospectus for a bond. The company promises to pay interest on the bond....and thats it. Investors then review the prospectus and decide whether or not to invest. There is no stock exchange approval involved and no legal commitments to future disclosures of financial information.

Once a company goes through the IPO process and issues shares and becomes public, it is then required to comply with the rules of the exchange on which its stock is listed. These requirements also include issuing fully audited quarterly and annual reports on the companies financial status and assets to the public.

A bond has no such requirements.

Do you get it now? They are not identical processes, and they do not encumber Saudi Aramco will identical reporting reporting requirements into the future. That means the prospectuses cannot be identical. A bond prospectus will commit Saudi Aramco to pay interest on a bond---and thats it. An IPO prospectus, if it ever happens, will involve much different commitments, including issuing shares of stock, and hence will have to be written differently to reflect the different requirements.

I would think that would be obvious for most people, but I understand you are a bit of a thickie.

So go ahead and ask your next question, and I'll try to answer it. Or, as is more likely, ask the same question over and over again. I think next time will by your sixth time asking the same question. Oh well, patience is a virtue they say. Sigh.

I always try to be patient with those who are a little bit slow, so please pardon me if I don't have the patience of Job in dealing with your endless repetition of the same question.

For the fourth time, a prospectus is not all that is required. The responsibility of the company doesn't end with issuing a prospectus. It is only the start of the process of going public.

Please consider how a bond is different from a company going public through an IPO.

jesus wept..I just explained to you how the two are different and now you are going to play turn about and present it as your own idea? What kind of fools do you take us all for here? Have you ever done an IPO? Have you ever been involved in a bond issue? I know the answer is no. I have, and what I wrote is based on that knowledge.

Your whole post just repeats almost exactly what I said the difference was. Exactly how does that make you look smart? Answer is it doesn't. Every time you post something here it just makes you look less informed and more moronic. It would be funny if not sad.

As I said from the very beginning, the IPO disclosure and the bond issuance disclosures related to the prospectus are the same. The IPO stops the minute the company is listed. The disclosure related to the IPO has nothing to do with the disclosure required of a public company. Its no different that a private club having certain requirements for you to join but once you are in all that matters is what is required of a member. I've repeated this relationship up thread a couple of times and now you try to point it out as if it's your idea?

The disclosure issue with regards to a public company versus a non-public company simply comes into the category of pros and cons for going public. It has nothing to do with the initial disclosure that is required ......do you understand that little point?

When a company is deciding whether to go public they look at the advantages such as access to large capital, equity event for exisiting private shareholders, etc and they look at the cons such as loss of overall control, and the need for continuous disclousure. Continuous disclosure is not the same thing as disclosure required under the terms of an IPO prospectus or a bond prospectus. It does include annual and in some jurisdictions quarterly release of financials but it is mainly all to do with making press releases about material events (i.e. events that can impact a minimum of 10% of the corporation's bottom line). Unlike in the prospectus a full audit of reserves is not required and the corporation usually only has to audit annually (not quarterly) 10% of their reserves in a rolling fashion. Aramco might not want the pain associated with continuous ongoing disclosure but they will almost certainly want the money associated with an IPO which they will not "get" through bond issuance given a bond must be redeemed. Again it is pros and cons about being public, nothing to do with the intial disclosure associated with doing an IPO or issuing a bond which are essentially the same.

Once a company goes through the IPO process and issues shares and becomes public, it is then required to comply with the rules of the exchange on which its stock is listed. These requirements also include issuing fully audited quarterly and annual reports on the companies financial status and assets to the public.

A bond has no such requirements.he continuous disclosure associated with a corporation

this sums up what you don't understand. The requirements for an IPO and the requirements for a bond in terms of disclosure are the same. What Aramco put in their bond prospectus in terms of disclosure is precisely what you would see in a prospectus for an IPO. The ongoing continuous disclosure of a public company is not related to the disclosure required to complete the IPO. It is completely different. Suggesting that Aramco would be worried about doing an IPO because they are worried about the disclosure associated with issuing an IPO is basically a stupid comment now given they have already released everything.

I always try to be patient with those who are a little bit slow, so please pardon me if I don't have the patience of Job in dealing with your endless repetition of the same question.

It is always astounding to me how someone who behaves like a teenager on a forum and basically has zero knowledge about the subject matter can feel comfortable about taking a smug "holier than thou" position. Basically, you are an uneducated as far as oil and gas knowledge is concerned, you have shown this time and again. You read things into press releases that aren't there, you don't bother to read what other posters write and once you have said something incredibly stupid you pretend you didn't and somehow think nobody notices. Perhaps you should consider an occupation in politics, there a double digit IQ will get you a long way.

Industry discourse suggests that the Permian Basin is powering U.S. shale oil and gas output. In fact, the hydrocarbon rich basin between western Texas and southeastern New Mexico is rarely out of energy market chatter these days.According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Permian may experience the biggest boost in production levels in the entire country. It is forecast to climb by 42,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 4.136 million bpd in May.There is little reason to doubt that projection, according to Matt Johnson, National Account Manager at Frac spread count specialists Primary Vision. "The basin has seen a steady increase in activity for almost two straight months. It has recovered nicely since January by about ~30 spreads. So from an activity standpoint (i.e. completions, frac jobs and active frac fleets/spreads) as we move out of winter, things are looking pretty good."The bump in activity follows trends seen in recent years, going by Primary Vision data. "In three of the past four years in which we have examined the Permian, activity rose in 2015, 2017 and 2018 in the months after winter roughly from February to July. The current year looks likely to follow that path," Johnson adds. That means more Permian oil and gas is coming onstream. In 2018, the basin accounted for 20% of the total U.S. oil production and at the same time accounted for 7% of the country's dry natural gas. Getting the maximum bang for bucks spent on the latter is what is once again worrying exploration and production (E&P) companies.

careinke wrote:Is anybody besides Plant and Roc still reading his thread? I must be a masochist to still be here.

I'm reading. There's really only a few posters here who have a smart and objective view of the landscape. Everyone else is just pushing an ideological and/or paranoid agenda, trolling for attention, or servicing a messianic/nostradamus complex.

EXTREME PREDICTION LEADERBOARD "this is peak now. Wanna bet? The Real Pain starts . . . now." (11/21/18)" --pstarr"$0/barrel soon as per etp." (12/30/18)" --pstarrATTN: SHORT LOST A BET AND WON'T EVEN ADMIT HE MADE ONE. HE SHOULD NOT BE WELCOME HERE!!!

careinke wrote:Is anybody besides Plant and Roc still reading his thread? I must be a masochist to still be here.

Nah, every thread where these two decided calling each other names is the best use of their time I just skip right over each of their posts until I find one like yours, worth reading. These two play the same game in several threads, here, the IPO thread and a couple of the climate change threads. Essentially its one person saying 'mom he touched me' and the other one say 'he started it!" going round and round in circles like to young brothers with nothing else worth saying.

I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

Can someone explain to me what those images mean that you keep posting? I'm pretty pop culture literate but they seem completely random and nonsensical to me.

EXTREME PREDICTION LEADERBOARD "this is peak now. Wanna bet? The Real Pain starts . . . now." (11/21/18)" --pstarr"$0/barrel soon as per etp." (12/30/18)" --pstarrATTN: SHORT LOST A BET AND WON'T EVEN ADMIT HE MADE ONE. HE SHOULD NOT BE WELCOME HERE!!!